Monday, June 30, 2014

If you disagree with the Obama administration, you are an enemy of the State. Michelle Obama has told high school students to monitor their parents for infractions against government definitions regarding acceptable speech, and the First Lady has even called "unacceptable" the fact that school districts are opting out of her very unpopular, and failed, school nutrition standards (as if abiding by these standards are required by royal decree). The IRS has been used to target, and punish, opposition against the democrats, and proof of the heinous crime has conveniently disappeared. Barack Obama has been using executive orders to unconstitutionally modify law, and to put his own laws into place, steering around Congress with the opinion that he can do whatever he wants, regardless of the opinion of the representation of the people. The President has gone so far as to mock Congress over it, acting against the Constitution in plain sight, with no remorse, and telling Congress that if they don't play ball, he will do what he wants, anyway, regardless of their constitutional authority regarding legislative powers. On the immigration front, the Democrat Party is committing atrocities against men, women and children that have been illegally entering the United States. The democrats are using these poor people coming to this country as political pawns to enhance their political agenda by dumping these people, homeless, and without stability, sleep, or food, into conservative areas in the United States for the sole political reason of altering the demographics of those regions, without any concern for the welfare, or safety of the illegal immigrants, or the health of the receiving areas where instances of diseases previously eradicated in the United States are on the rise. To oppose the federal government is to place a target on your back, making you a fringe radical, anti-government anarchist, and any other ridiculous term the leftists can throw at you so that the perception by those not as informed as you is to hate you.

In line with the usual narrative, at the University of California at Irvine in Southern California, President Obama proclaimed that daring to oppose his agenda on regarding the man-made climate change hoax is not only unacceptable, but those that dare to oppose him are fringe radicals that are akin to being like those that once thought the moon is “made of cheese.”

Hard-core leftists have ignored the fact that their evidence fails to link man-made emissions to climate temperature, and that their global warming scientists have been manipulating the data to force the results to fall within the expected agenda parameters.

While the democrats claim they are saving the planet, the truth is that they are using the gullible people that fall for their fantasy science to push an agenda of control, and one that is designed to stand in the way of energy innovation, and inhibit America's energy dependency by trying to push "green energy," which has been a proven failure, for the purpose of dumping more money into their own pockets.

“The question is not whether we need to act” on climate change, Obama said. “The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest. The question is whether we have the will to act before it’s too late.”

As usual, his deception is out of control. The planet is no longer on a warming trend. It was warming at one point, but not due to human influence, but because of solar influence. Now, we are going in a different direction. And in history, the planet has been much warmer, and if anything, we might be globally cooler than we should be.

In his speech, the reality of the agenda poked its head out a few times, where Obama announced big government control, without the participation of a Congress he believes to be irrelevant (which means he thinks YOUR VOICE is irrelevant). According to the president, he is going to force private industries to comply with his dictates, using his own executive mandates to coerce American industries into further cutting power-plant emissions, retrofits that will cost so much that they will put smaller companies out of business. His goal? Cutting carbon dioxide levels by 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels.

This will kill smaller businesses, and eliminate the competition of larger businesses.

So much for Obama's claim to hate big, rich corporations.

Then the arrogant bastard dared to compare himself to President John F. Kennedy, and his desire to get us to the moon, saying “When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anyone saying the moon wasn’t there, or that it was made of cheese."

If Kennedy was alive today, based on his national defense policies, and economic policies including a reduction in taxes and regulations against businesses, he would probably be a member of the GOP. As for Obama's moon-made-of-cheese reference, that is a common liberal left bullying tactic, trying to ridicule their opposition into silence, and portraying their opposition as dumb yokels.

A professor at Yale found the truth to be the opposite, and that Tea Party affiliated voters are much more informed, and are specifically more scientifically literate, than the blind followers of the democrat party.

Bah, bah, bah.

Today’s Congress, said Obama, “is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence. “They will tell you it is a hoax, or a fad.”

Not only is it a hoax, but Obama knows it, and is lying to push his political agenda.

And don't forget, these were the same people warning us of a worldwide ice age back in the seventies.

While Obama didn’t provide any names, he added regarding his defense of the fabricated science of climate change, “One member of Congress actually says the world is cooling.”

Actually, science does indeed say we are in a cooling trend, but Obama won't recognize that because his political agenda of destroying American dominance, and killing individuality and freedom, is more important than the truth.

While the democrats are laughing, thinking they are somehow on a plane above everyone else, science is making a mockery of their deceptive agenda, and the truth is making them look like fools.

It doesn't matter to the liberal left that their climate change lies are killing jobs, killing small business, and putting owner operators out of business like California's big rig pollution standard has been doing. For democrats, it is all about agenda, and not about the welfare of Americans.

Obama, and his minions, doesn't care about the truth. The only care is convincing voters too stupid to seek out the truth to stay in the blind corner of liberal left deception. Democrats have always used the same method. Obama, and the democrats, are trying to ridicule their opposition into silence. Obama, with the rhetoric of speeches at places like the recent speeches in Irvine, and Anaheim, is trying to shut his opposition up.

Hence, the harsh words for his opponents, saying that they “duck the question” of climate change.

He said, “I’ll translate that for you. What that really means is, ‘I know that man-made climate change really is happening, but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot.”

According to Obama, Republicans were more open to the idea “before the Tea Party decided it was a massive threat to freedom and liberty."

The proposed carbon rule by Obama, detailed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, would require state-by-state limitations on carbon-dioxide emissions.

There is no authority granted by the Constitution to the federal government allowing the central government, especially by executive fiat, to force the States to do anything in regards to environmental issues. In fact, the EPA is an unconstitutional federal department. According to the law of the land, environmental issues is none of the federal government's business, and is a power that is reserved to the States.

Obama's use of commencement addresses to make policy announcements also shows how much of a coward he is, using a safe environment of recently leftism-conditioned college students as his audience, so that he is assured no confrontation, or viable challenges.

This would lead to the question of, "Why bother [seeking more than $2 billion to respond to the flood of immigrants illegally entering the U.S.], then?" The answer, it seems to me, is to set up a public justification for going ahead and taking those "new powers" anyway after congressional Republicans tell him to get stuffed because they hate his guts and don't trust him any farther than they could throw Michelle.

Conservatives railed at President Barack Obama's announcement Monday that he would take executive action to reform the U.S. immigration system after hopes of passing legislation in Congress officially died....

Obama chided House Republicans for refusing to bring immigration reform to a vote....

"Obama chided House Republicans for refusing to commit political suicide...."

....and said only legislation could provide a permanent fix to the problem.

"Legislation" being the sole purview of Congress, per Article I, Section 1.

"I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing.

"I take executive action only when I want something and the GOP won't give it to me."

And in this situation, the failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security; it's bad for our economy, and it's bad for our future," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

"And in this situation, the failure of House Republicans to slit their own electoral throats is bad for my party."

"America cannot wait forever for them to act. That's why today I'm beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress."

"My party can't wait forever for them to surrender whatever tattered remnants of the country I haven't already conquered. That's why today I'm going to take the rest of their Article I power and send them all to the Alaska Gulag."

And there it is. A masterfully orchestrated crisis that he is poised to exploit the hell out of to give himself and his party permanent, unchecked power forever and ever, worlds without end, hallelujah, amen.

Looks like Speaker Boehner's congressional lawsuit threat wasn't as effective a deterrent as he'd hoped. But then, neither would impeachment have been. That's what happens when an ignorant, corrupt electorate twice elects a dictator.

Not a "giant leap" back towards the right to work, but a "small leap," at least:

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home healthcare workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover a union's costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks and their bank accounts in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don't have to share the burden of union costs.

As Big Labor has grown greedier, more corrupt, and more power-mad over the years, their private sector membership numbers have hemorrhaged. As their private sector membership numbers have hemorrhaged, their public sector membership numbers have skyrocketed. It's a natural "evolutionary" process, when you think about it. Why bother "organizing" the private sector labor force when your Democrat buddies and pals are going to nationalize the entire economy anyway? Eventually, everybody will be in the public sector - or else, right?

Along with that process has grown stratospheric arrogance, to where Big Labor bosses consider themselves entitled to syphon dues out of workers that aren't even in their jurisdiction. It is to that that five Justices put a stop today....

...."partially":

But the ruling was limited to "partial-public employees" and stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions of teachers, firefighters and other government workers to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers "are different from full-fledged public employees" because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees. The ruling does not affect private sector workers.

Y'see, eleven years ago the State of Illinois passed a law that declared home health workers who care for the disabled state employees because they are paid with Medicaid funds distributed by the State, and therefore they were required to unionize. Those that didn't wish to join Service Employees International Union (the infamous SEIU) didn't have to participate, but they were still forced to cough up dues that were (you guessed it) withheld from their Medicaid payments. The plaintiff, Pamela Harris, along with the group of dissident health workers on whose behalf she filed suit, objected on First Amendment grounds that they should not be forced to subsidize an organization and its views that they did not support. SEIU and the State of Illinois said, "Oh, is that so? Well, [BLEEP] you."

So why didn't Justice Alito go whole-hog and overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the 1977 Supreme Court decision which held that public employees who choose not to join a union can still be required to pay "representation fees"? Because extending Abood to include "partial-public employees, quasi-public employees, or simply private employees would invite problems."

"Problems" like fearing for his life if he ever left his home again, I'd imagine:

Still, the court's limited ruling means public unions avoided a potentially devastating blow that could have meant a major drop in public employee membership ranks.

"Going nuclear" is the term for it, I believe.

But, hey, Justice Alito, in for a penny, in for a pound, right? Or is it that after Barack Obama decides to bypass the Republican Senate next year and start packing Olympus directly with his "empathetic" appointments, his ruling is just going to be expunged anyway, so why bother going "all the way"?

Exit question #1: Now that the Supreme Court has thrown out the contraception mandate, and the justices seem amenable to taking ObamaCare apart brick by brick, how's about they go back and revisit their 2012 upholding of the individual mandate? It's not like Barack Obama has been "faithfully executing" it, after all.

Exit question #2: What's the over/under on how soon The One will publicly disavow the SCOTUS's ruling and keep the contraceptive mandate defiantly in place? Or, put another way, how many constitutional crises does he have room for on his dictatorial plate?

The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author [Harold Ambler] who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming....

"The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007," said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.

My goodness, that's inconvenient. I mean, I know the Roland Emmerich theory about melting ice caps "freshening" the oceans, disrupting the Gulf Stream "conveyor" current, triggering a 24-hour ice age and killing the entire population of the Northern Hemisphere that doesn't make it south of the Rio Grande in time to provide Enrique Peña Nieto with a fresh crisis to exploit....

....But there's this other little theory called the "Fat Albert" theory - named for its progenitor, an obscure vice president a couple of decades back - that holds that there shouldn't be any icecaps anymore because they should all have melted completely by now and we should all be roasting to death....

....So which is it, Watermelons? The Emmerich Big Freeze or the Gore Fricassee?

Oh, but wait, both of them require melting ice caps, don't they? Hmmm; that's a problem. I suppose they could always compromise by letting Fat Albert immolate the Southern Hemisphere, since Emmerich has already turned the Northern Hemisphere into an ice cream bar. Except for the melting Arctic cap that isn't melting. Wow, climatological hysteria is hard, isn't it?

But fret not, Gaia-worshippers, your high priests have got it handled:

However, [Ambler] pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.

Now if they can just master mass hypnosis and make everybody forget about the burgeoning Arctic ice cap, all their problems will be solved.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

Why? Because since congressional Republicans weren't willing to create his illegal alien invasion for him, and he therefore had to unconstitutionally create it himself, he thinks that they should now at least, belatedly, be willing to subsidize it. Then he can take the two bil and use it to import the next wave or two of "undocumented" foreign children instead.

Barack Obama will seek more than $2 billion to respond to the flood of immigrants illegally entering the U.S. through the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas and ask for new powers to deal with returning immigrant children apprehended while traveling without their parents, a White House official said Saturday.

He's asking for new powers, now? Huh; well, first time for everything, I guess. Still sounds like his version of the Enabling Act. And there's also the matter of his really not needing any "new" powers because he's pretty much already cleaned out Article I, Section 1.

This would lead to the question of, "Why bother, then?" The answer, it seems to me, is to set up a public justification for going ahead and taking those "new powers" anyway after congressional Republicans tell him to get stuffed because they hate his guts and don't trust him any farther than they could throw Michelle.

In case you have ever wondered why Barack Obama has had the worst congressional relations of any presidential administration in American history, now you know. It's like the crisis exploitation equivalent of Astroglide.

With Obama looking to Congress for help with what he has called an "urgent humanitarian situation," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi visited a Border Patrol facility in Brownsville that held unaccompanied children.

"The fact is these are children — children and families," Pelosi said. "We have a moral responsibility to address this in a dignified way."

"'I'd have the dirty, smelly, scruffy ragamuffins all aborted but we need to harvest fifty years' worth of their votes first.'"

In Brownsville, Pelosi said she holds little hope that Congress will pass comprehensive immigration reform this year but that politics should be set aside.

"Pelosi knows Barack Obama will pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, so Republicans should put their opposition to amnesty aside so that she can regain her Speaker's rubber stamp and all the relevance that comes with it."

"A few days ago I would have been more optimistic about comprehensive immigration reform," Pelosi said.

"Before that Tea Party Nazi assassinated that useful idiot Eric Cantor, I would have been more optimistic about shoving another amnesty down the country's throat."

"I thought that we had been finding a way because we have been very patient and respectful of (Speaker of the House John Boehner) trying to do it one way or another."

Wow, didn't have to translate that one.

"I don't think he gives us much reason to be hopeful now, but we never give up. There's still the month of July."

That one, either.

But while Crazy Nancy may never give up, her amnesty point man has:

This past week, a leading House supporter of policy changes said legislative efforts on the issue were dead. Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois-4, who's been one of the most bullish Democrats about the chances for action, said he had given up.

Almost exactly 100 years ago the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand prompted a series of bad decisions by world leaders that caused World War I.

Some experts see striking and disconcerting similarities between 1914 and 2014.

The two time periods share one critical feature, warns Dominique Moisi, senior adviser at The French Institute for International Affairs, in an article for Project Syndicate.

That feature is "the risk that an increasingly complex security and political environment will overwhelm unexceptional leaders. Before they wake up to the risks, the situation could spin out of control."

In 1914, Europe’s leaders resigned themselves to war after failing to find compromises, he says. Historian Christopher Clark said they "sleepwalked" into war.

That kind of blundering leadership is now again a possibility, as conflict and uncertainty again threatens the world, Moisi argues, citing the Middle East, Ukraine and the East and South China Seas.

There is a big difference, however. A century ago, there hadn't been a world war (which is to say, a general European war) since a century before that (i.e. the Napoleonic wars), and thus, not within the lifetimes of those early twentieth century leaders. Consequently, they all believed that a war against their enemies would be quick and easy. Because of this, in turn, both sides were eager for war.

Today only one side, regardless of the region in question, wants war, but that desire has been contained and deterred for the past seventy years by American global hegemony and power. That power has been decimated by Barack Obama, who has been as eager to fan the flames of ambition of every American enemy in every part of the world as his European counterparts were to attack each other a hundred years ago. The result is that winds of war are burgeoning more or less everywhere, but only from one direction, while we refuse to see it and strip ourselves naked before the oncoming onslaught. Whereas in 1914 the result was a long, bloody stalemate, this time it's likely to be a runaway collapse and slaughter, with "liberal" use of WMDs involved.

Today, the United States is like Britain was then, a waning superpower unable to guarantee security. China is Germany, an aggressive, rising superpower. And Japan is France, a declining regional power and ally of the world superpower.

The Japan-France analogy is very apt. Red China is the Second Reich only larger by several orders of magnitude. The U.S. is unlike Britain in that it wasn't until after World War II that the Brits started committing slow national suicide with their embrace of socialism. It wasn't until after World War I that the British even started to decline as a global power, and that decline was offset by America's rise. Under Barack Obama the U.S. is destroying itself at warp speed, with no counterbalancing Western power picking up the slack. That's why today's global order is so rapidly spinning out of control into chaos and disaster.But the final spark won't come in the Western Pacific or Eastern Europe; it will come in the Middle East. Any conflict prior anyplace else will be mere table-setting.

Aside from America's conquest and/or destruction, of course. That is a prerequisite for The End.

Sunday, June 29 from 3pm to 5pm we will be meeting at the Murrieta Border Patrol station located at 25762 Madison, Murrieta (951-816-3000). The rally will be in front of the Border Patrol Station, not down the street as many people wandered last Tuesday. The purpose of this rally is to support our border patrol and send a message that says we not only are against the dumping of illegal aliens into our communities, but that we are disgusted by the Obama Administration's treatment of these people, using them as political pawns for a political agenda, and inhumanely dumping these people without support, without any humanitarian concern, for the express politically driven reason of changing the demographics for the Democrat Party's electoral gain.

As my wife quipped yesterday, it is illegal to dump a dog off on the side of the road because it is inhumane treatment to the animal.

The number of illegals being dumped into Murrieta is being increased to 200 every 72 hours, rather than deport these illegal aliens back to their homes. The new dumping schedule begins tonight.

I would like to see as many of you local Southern California people there as possible, and for those of you that receive my emails that are not local, please put us in your prayers. Also, forward this email, and share this on your social media pages.

Sitting on the couch and complaining is not a strategy. Let's be active, let's show up and do what we can. At yesterday's rally a pair of young men driving by saw the event, stopped, parked, and joined us. Because of us being willing to be out there, two more people have joined the fight. Small numbers add up to large numbers, and people being willing to take time out of their day to participate in this kind of thing gets people's attention, and makes a difference.

Perception has become the most important part of this, so we ask that you help us keep the perception as it needs to be, so though we welcome your signs and flags, we ask that nothing that could be construed in a way the opposition is hoping for is brought and waved (zombie masks, political effigies with fascist symbolism attached, upside down flags, etc.).

A part of being active is also being in contact with your representatives, locally, at the State level, or your Congressman. This will be turned around by the people, but we must be willing to speak, act, and show up. We must demand that the powers that be enforce the immigration laws that are on the books, in line with their constitutional duties.

This is a pro-Border Patrol rally, anti-federal policy regarding illegal aliens. We support the Border Patrol, and oppose the unlawful importing of illegal aliens, which brings with it diseases, crime, and puts out a welcome mat to Islamist Jihadists from outside the region.

Don't forget to bring fluids for hydration, it will get warm.

Thank you for all you do. I am looking forward to seeing you out there.

After completing the three branches of government, now it is time to turn to the States. . . beginning with Full Faith and Credit.

Join Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio as he journeys through the United States Constitution. We study the concepts, principles, and direct text of the U.S. Constitution from the original point of view of the Founding Fathers.

New episodes each Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time. Go to Constitution Study Radio for all podcasts of past episodes.

Doug's book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution is available on Amazon, and CreateSpace.

Alex is back!!! Listen to Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs, Saturday, 2:00 pm Pacific, on KCAA AM1050, or Online at KCAAradio.com.

Opening Segment: In Murrieta, California over 500 illegal aliens are being released on the streets per week. The same is happening in Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma. Is it a coincidence that undocumented democrats are being imported, and dropped into conservative areas?

After the radio program today we will be in Temecula at the Duck Pond on Rancho California Road and Ynez at a protest rally against Illegal Aliens being imported into our communities. The rally is from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm.

Last Tuesday we had a protest in front of the Border Patrol Station in Murrieta, and we are doing it again on Sunday. Revisit Political Pistachio tomorrow for the details, or email me at constitutionspeaker at yahoo.com.

Then Ben Carson for President group representatives will join the show to discuss their efforts. Will Ben Carson in the mix be enough to shake up America enough to break their addiction on government dependency?

After the opening segment regarding undocumented democrats, the Book of the Week will be regarding an important piece of work published in 1888 that takes aim at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in 1787-1788. Then we will discuss the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, and finally the. . .

JASmius wrote: The thing to take away from the Cochran-McDaniel runoff election is that Chris McDaniel won a majority of the GOP vote. Given that this was a GOP primary, it stands to reason that only Republicans should have been eligible to cast ballots in it, yes? But noooooo, it was an "open" primary in which Democrats could vote as well. Not surprisingly, they exploited this opportunity to stick Republicans with the senatorial nominee they didn't want. Just exactly how is that either just or rational?

A listener to the KCAA show says that closed primaries are unconstitutional based on the 24th Amendment. He’s wrong. He also says that closed primaries are a tool to shut out conservatives by the establishment, but this primary proved the opposite.

The Libyan militant charged in the 2012 Benghazi attack pleaded not guilty to a federal terrorism charge Saturday before U.S. District judge in his first court appearance on U.S. soil.

Natch.

Ahmed Abu Khattala entered his plea on the conspiracy charge at the heavily guarded federal courthouse in Washington, D.C.

A lot more heavily guarded than the Benghazi consulate compound was, I'm guessing.

A one-count grand jury indictment says Abu Khattala took part in a conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists in the 2012 attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The charge carries a maximum punishment of life in prison, but Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael DiLorenzo told the court that additional charges were expected to be filed.

They've been sitting on their asses for almost two years and all they've managed to file is one charge?

In court, he wore a two-piece black track suit and kept his hands behind his back. He looked impassively at Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for most of a 10-minute court hearing.

Not impassively; bemusedly, as Khattala was no doubt envisioning, even planning, how he's going to cut Judge Facciola's head off. Actually, I'm surprised he could keep a straight face. Here is this jihadist butcher, having committed acts of war against the United States, been left free to roam the streets of Libya, giving multiple sympathetic interviews to American media outlets, practically in cahoots with the Obama Regime as a de facto political intelligence asset, merely awaiting when the White House would need to "bring him in" for his appointed role in this contrived lawfare "drama". Which we can safely assume will result in his acquittal on all charge - oh, right, I guess they are planning to file three more, aren't they? Or at least so they said - for, naturally, lack of evidence. Because officially, Benghazi never happened, if you'll recall.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Khattala sue the U.S. taxpayers on the grounds that this so-called "trial" is a hate crime - and win.

While the Washington Redskins trademark and logos are the source of heated debate, we seem to have ignored the fact that the team's intellectual property belongs to them, as granted by the U.S. government dating back more than 80 years. Therefore, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office's decision to revoke the trademark is an attack on intellectual property and the start of a slippery slope for businesses trying to protect their property rights.

This is all about ideology, and not about the legality of a trademark. Does this mean that as a business owner I have to look over my shoulder for fear that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can void my intellectual property at any moment? Can the government now decide on a whim what trademarks are offensive?

Yes aaaaand yes.

What powerful force caused the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to revoke the trademark of the Washington Redskins? A lawsuit brought by five American Indians who contend the name disparages them.

Five minorities who contend a trademarked name disparages them constitute a majority - especially when they have a lawless, dictatorial Regime at their beck & call.

Currently, there are 600 trademarks that carry an American Indian image. These are held by 450 companies. Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office going after all of these? Are these five American Indians going to be spending the rest of their lives in court?

If necessary. But probably not, because by making an example of the Washington [CENSORED BY THE WHITE HOUSE], the other 450 companies are supposed to take the hint, fall into line, and drop their trademarks "voluntarily". And most of them will, in all likelihood. Those that won't will meet the [CENSORED BY THE WHITE HOUSE]'s fate.

This case could start an avalanche of attacks on intellectual property.

"Could"?

I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers representing the Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's brands are huddling late in the night in the event some black Americans decide to bring suit over their brand's depiction of black Americans.

That's the idea, Neil.

"Hail to Obama! Hail victory! Big ears on the warpath! Fight for BHO!"

Barack Obama mocked Republican lawmakers' plan to file a lawsuit against him for using his executive authority to make policy, saying Congress had forced his hand by failing to take action.

"The suit is a stunt," Obama said in an interview with ABC News that aired on Friday.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Wednesday he planned take legal action alleging the president has abused his executive authority by implementing policies without congressional approval.

"I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing," Obama said.

As an example, Obama pointed to efforts to overhaul the U.S. immigration system and said there was wide public support for change.

Sweeping legislation passed the Democratic-controlled Senate last year, but the plan has stalled in the Republican-controlled House, which is led by Boehner. Republicans say the administration must first secure the U.S. borders before easing immigration restrictions.

"You're going to squawk if I try to fix some parts of it administratively that are within my authority while you're not doing anything?" he said, referring to congressional Republicans.

The thing Tea Partiers have to understand is, impeachment would be every bit as much of a "stunt" in Barack Obama's eyes. Why? Because of the power realities and who and what Barack Obama is.

Note the implicit assumptions beneath his mindset: "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing." Not a "smidgeon" of consideration for whether or not he has the constitutional legal authority to "do something". Utter, dripping contempt, both for his enemies, for the federal judiciary, and for the U.S. Constitution. Stratospheric willfulness - "I'm going to get what I want regardless of you, anybody else, OR the law of the land" - and his use of it as purest blackmail, like holding the founding document next to a blowtorch and saying, "Pass amnesty, or up in flames it goes, Boner." Which, by this time, would be redundant, but I trust the drift has been caught.

This is not a man that is going to be moved by a lawsuit, by the Supreme Court ruling unanimously against him, or by impeachment, because in his mind, they, and we, are all powerless to stop him. And thus we arrive at the point I've been for months now: How do you stop a lawless dictator using legal means? It's like closing the barn door after the horse is glue.

That's not a disregarding of those legal means, of which both a lawsuit and impeachment are perfectly legitimate parts. We must do our due diligence to exhaust every such avenue, including a Republic Review and an Article V convention to maintain the legitimacy of our own cause. My concern is that (1) none of them will work, because Barack Obama will simply ignore them, or (2) if they do start making progress, it'll be far too late to make any difference. If we optimistically assume that it's not too late to save the country before it goes over the proverbial cliff into the "dark abyss" of Winston Churchill's one time depiction - and I don't - how many TPers realize that this is a desperate race against time? Two years and change until "fundamental transformation" is permanent and irremovable. Whereas our constitutional federal republican system is not designed for swiftness; its wheels turn slowly, eventually, but not quickly, producing the proper and correct result. Frankly, we don't have that kind of time, if we have any at all.

And Barack Obama knows it. Which is another reason why he doesn't fear anything we have in our constitutional arsenal. In his mind, all he has to do is run out the clock, because he's already won.

You know what the only thing that could turn this around really is? Barack Obama somehow morphing into Richard Nixon in the perception of the major media. Are you starting to see why I'm not optimistic?

Friday, June 27, 2014

Obama sings a smug, self-satisfied, falsely optimistic tune; Another unanimous bench-slap for Obama; The decision in the Noel Canning case is a defeat for Obama on which constitutionalists can build; The Constitution means nothing to the Obama Regime; The ruthless exercise of power by strongmen and generalissimos is the natural state of human affairs; and is Elizabeth Warren the Obama of 2016 or the George McGovern?

The United States tied with Singapore and Thailand for the eighth most-worsened country on the 2014 Fragile States Index, an annual report by the Washington-based nonprofit Fund for Peace that scores global political, economic, and social pressures experienced by states.

While the index is dominated by underdeveloped nations, the United States ranked eighth on the list of most-worsened, and was tied with Singapore, and one spot below France, which earned its position due to "political and economic malaise," according to CNN.

"Political and economic malaise" would certainly be an accurate description of The Age Of The One. Runaway debt, runaway currency debasement, international decline, nationalization of entire industries, a collapsing economy, a burgeoning domestic dictatorship - "most-worsened" doesn't begin to describe the Marxist-Alinskyist cancer that is ravaging the former American republic.

However, as its very name foreshadows, the "Fund For Peace" does not cite any of that:

The United States made the list for such reasons as "lack of bipartisanship in Congress and the partial government shutdown last year," CNN reported.

If only that accursed Tea Party would just let Godbama fully "bless" America, Obamatopia would already be a reality. Right.

Prosecutors, ladies and gentlemen, do not make charges; prosecutors file charges. If Messrs. Chisholm and Schmitz actually had evidence of this so-called "criminal scheme" on the part of Governor Walker and conservative groups, they would have filed formal charges so fast they'd have left vapor trails behind them. In the absence of such charges, one can only reasonably conclude that they don't have any evidence. So they make public accusations in order to frantically try and keep up the crumbling, never-all-that-big-in-the-first-place negative buzz around the Walk-man.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is not a target of a criminal probe into potential violation of campaign finance laws, according to a lawyer for the special prosecutor in the case.

Randall Crocker, an attorney for the special prosecutor, told the Wisconsin State Journal that when the probe was halted, the Republican governor had neither been served with a subpoena, nor was he among the targeted individuals. The probe was stopped by a federal judge, whose ruling is under appeal."At the time the investigation was halted, Governor Walker was not a target of the investigation. At no time has he been served with a subpoena."

He further added, "It is wrong for any person to point to this sentence in a legal argument as a finding by the special prosecutor that Governor Walker has engaged in a criminal scheme. lt is not such a finding."

Wow, that was fast. I guess the ridiculous public accusation, coming as it did after two prosecutorial smear attempts of the future POTUS were smushed by the courts, didn't get nearly the traction that the media had hoped they would. Though the Governor's Donk challenger, Mary Burke, did get an attack ad out of it, for whatever it's worth, which can only backfire on her in light of this prosecutorial walk-back.

Are we Rome? Is Nero fiddling while Rome burns? Is Thad Cochran's close victory in Mississippi symbolic of a modern-day Nero?

Well, Mr. Root, I think equating Thad Cochran to Nero is a bit much. At least depending upon which Nero you're talking about....

....no, it's a bit much with either Nero.

The thing to take away from the Cochran-McDaniel runoff election is that Chris McDaniel won a majority of the GOP vote. Given that this was a GOP primary, it stands to reason that only Republicans should have been eligible to cast ballots in it, yes? But noooooo, it was an "open" primary in which Democrats could vote as well. Not surprisingly, they exploited this opportunity to stick Republicans with the senatorial nominee they didn't want. Just exactly how is that either just or rational?

I am well and truly sick of the term "establishment," Mr. Root. There is a helluva lot more than just a "dime's worth" of difference between Republicans and Democrats. In lieu of fratricidal indulgences, I would suggest focusing on actual solutions to the submarining of Tea Party victories, like a call for re-partisanizing, or "closing" primaries. That way, at least you'll ensure that the "establishment" has no loopholes, and no excuses.

Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached if he refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS tea party-targeting scandal, Senator Ted Cruz demanded Thursday.

The Texas Republican, who has sounded the call for a special prosecutor in the scandal before, made his case for possible impeachment on the Senate floor, ripping into Holder for not standing up to President Barack Obama.

"It saddens me to say that the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has become the most partisan Department of Justice in the history of our country," Cruz said, blasting its lead investigator on the IRS issue, Barbara Bosserman, as a "partisan" donor who gave over $6,000 to the president's two election campaigns. He also noted IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has contributed over $100,000 to Democrats.

“Americans need a guarantee that the IRS will never be used again to target an administration’s political enemies."

And they're not going to get one from the Obama Regime, ever, under any conceivable circumstances, no matter how many times Senator Cruz calls for Eric "The Red's" impeachment. A fact of which he must be aware, but which he goes through the motions of saying anyway to get the call on the public record for history's sake, I guess. Though it's the right thing to say, and would be the right thing to do, there is something more than faintly comical about demanding that two red peas in a commie pod "stand up to" each other. Did Heinrich Himmler ever "stand up to" Adolph Hitler?

Senator Cruz must also be aware that there's not going to be any impeachment of anybody only four months out from a midterm election where GOP prospects for big gains are so rich and abundant. While it's true that impeaching Holder wouldn't be quite the same magnitude of "racist affront" that going after King Hussein himself would, for the Left it would be as DefCon 2 to DefCon 1. Eric "The Red" is Red Barry's top lieutenant, after all, plus he's "of color," so the bleepstorm stirred up by such a showdown is more than sufficient deterrent against the attempt being made, at least until after November 4th.

I know, I know, "But what about principle?" Believe me, I sympathize and empathize with y'all on that. Obama and Holder should be impeached, removed, criminally prosecuted, and imprisoned for the rest of their worthless lives for what they've done to this country over the past five and a half years. But, as I always say, lots of things in life should happen but never do or can. The fact of the matter is that impeaching Eric Holder would be pointless. There's no way a Democrat Senate would even try him, much less remove him from the A-G-ship. All the attempt would accomplish is to generate another guaranteed wave of anti-GOP/anti-Tea Party media vilification and energize the Nutroots right in time for the midterm elections with zero chance of a conviction payoff.

As the adage goes, never throw rocks at a guy with a machine gun.

Plus, even if Holder could be removed, why would anybody expect that his infernal majesty would do anything but appoint a Holder clone as his replacement? The problem here, ultimately, isn't the Attorney-General, but his boss. And all the practical reasons against impeaching Eric "The Red" go double for moving against O.

So what, besides sterling principle, is motivating Senator Cruz to make so "provocative" a public rallying cry? Eeyore believes it's Defundageddon all over again:

This reminds me a little of the “defund” effort, actually, insofar as Cruz is encouraging the House to do something bold knowing he hasn’t a prayer of getting the Democratic Senate to play along. If they take his advice and impeach Holder, great. He can take credit among righties for having introduced the idea, regardless of what happens in the Senate. If they decline to impeach Holder, great. That just proves his point that Congress needs more principled conservatives in charge of both chambers. I assume it’s no coincidence that he’s introducing this the day after Boehner announced that the House will sue Obama for executive overreach. Lawsuits are all well and good, but only a squish would run to the courts for relief when he has it in his institutional power to remove an offending executive branch official himself. Republicans want bold colors, as Cruz is fond of saying, not pale pastels.

Yeah, we want bold colors. But we'd also like control of the Senate back as well. Of the two propositions, the former is impossible while the latter is likely. So why risk sacrificing the latter, which is attainable and would bring the former into the realm of possibility (if not probability), in favor of the former, which is currently a pipedream?

Because Senator Cruz wants to be seen as "fighting the good fight," even when doing so will, in terms of actual, real-world results, be counterproductive at best. Which, it seems to me, brings his "bold colors" into legitimate question vis-a-vie his presidential ambitions.

If only the latter were attainable. Were they, it might actually be worth it.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

The Federal Government is acting outside the authorities granted by the United States Constitution, but if you do not understand the dynamics of the principles of the Constitution, and recognize what those authorities are and why they were granted in the manner that they were, how can you expect, or be a part of enacting, change in the system?

In the Temecula Constitution Class we will be wrapping up the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution tonight. Join us tonight, and every Thursday Night, 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road in Temecula, for a one hour session where we study the original intent of the United States Constitution.

Once and for all, the left’s apocalyptic fear of a Hobby Lobby SCOTUS win before the decision is actually handed down; New IRS emails show Lois Lerner targeted GOP Senator Charles Grassley for audit, rectal probe, and body cavity search; IRS admits to leaking confidential information used against Mitt Romney to throw 2012 election; Why the Obamedia embargo all Obama scandals (not that you don't already know why, but still....); Is the Obama presidency imploding or exploding?; and, time permitting, the case for a boring president.

The IRS isn't the only government agency that has lost emails that the House Oversight Committee wants to see as part of an investigation — now the Environmental Protection Agency said it is missing emails as well.

"I don't believe this is a missing hard drive issue," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the Republican-led committee on Wednesday, CNN reported. "There is a challenge getting access to the data on it ... I'm still hoping we recover all those emails."

Her admission came just as the committee was focusing on the Internal Revenue Service's contention that the hard drive on a computer used by former official Lois Lerner had been destroyed after it crashed, losing emails that Oversight says are crucial in its investigation into whether the agency improperly targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

The missing EPA emails belong to a biologist who had worked on a controversial mining project assessment for the Pebble Mine in Alaska. The Oversight Committee and the EPA's own inspector general are conducting separate investigations into whether the biologist or the EPA colluded with environmentalists on a negative review of the Alaskan project.

Hey, if the IRS is untouchable and will never be investigated by Eric Holder or an independent counsel, why should they hog all the hijinx? I'm waiting for The One himself to start making mention of lost cybercommunications in his next "historic" speech, doubtless as part of a pitch for nationalizing the Internet so as to "fix" such "problems". Look how well it worked for healthcare.gov; what could possibly go wrong?

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a blow to President Barack Obama by cutting back the power of the White House to temporarily fill senior government posts without Senate approval.

In a ruling that will constrain future presidents, the court held on a 9-0 vote that the three appointments Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 were unlawful. The decision limits the ability of presidents to make so-called recess appointments without Senate approval, although the court did not go as far as it could have gone in restricting a president's powers.

The decision, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, could especially hamper the Obama administration if Republicans were to win control of the Senate in the November elections. They already control the House of Representatives. It also is likely to make it more difficult for the president to make appointments of his choosing during the last two years of his term. [emphasis added]

If it had been the typical split, "Thank God Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas haven't dropped dead yet" vote, we'd have just gotten lucky and it'd only have been a matter of time until this usurped legislative power had been confirmed to be in presidential hands. But the fact that it was unanimous gives it some weight that the White House will be more hard-pressed to dispute or spin away. It's not impossible, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they won't let go of the Senate's advice and consent power easily, but they're more likely to just quietly hold onto it without making a fuss about it until this setback blows over.

That'll be easy to do since Harry (G)Reid nuked the filibuster last year, but if the GOP retakes the upper chamber this fall, things could get very interesting very quickly.

I received a phone call yesterday from my enthusiastic mom after she read a commentary about the Book of Acts in the Bible. The commentator wrote that during the transition of the early Christians from old covenant legalism to new covenant Grace through Jesus Christ, Rome was going through a transition as well. Rome was becoming a tyranny, and though at that point much of the local administration of government was handled by the local governments, the centralized consolidated imperial government was beginning to take on more and more responsibility regarding local issues. Rome did not begin as an empire. Rome began as a republic, but over time the Roman Republic transitioned from a republic, to a democracy, to an oligarchy, and finally a totalitarian empire. This transition was not instant, it happened incrementally, and the key in regards to the big picture of it all was changing the atmosphere from the central government handling external issues and local government handling internal issues, to the central government intruding upon all issues, including local laws and customs.

The United States was founded as a republic, and the system was designed to be similar to those that existed in Rome, Slovenia, and countries that prospered under the Saxon system of individual-centric government. The federal government was designed to handle external issues, the States were supposed to handle State issues, and local governments were expected to handle the community issues. State Sovereignty became a valuable key to the success of the United States, not only serving to handle internal issues, but also serving to act as a check and balance against a central government that could potentially become a tyranny if allowed to insert itself into local issues.

Freedom of Religion was the lure that brought most colonists to the English Colonies across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe. In mainland Europe, the unholy marriage of church and state between the monarchies and the Catholic Church not only enabled an authoritarian system to rule over the people, but even made dissent a serious crime, because opposition to the government was not only an affront against one's king, but also against God (since the king, it was taught, was the ruler based on divine appointment). In England, though the island nation pursued the barbarian system (barbarian defined as non-Roman) of the Saxons along with much of northern Europe, which not only pursued forming a government where nobody was above the law, including the monarchy, but also the teachings of Protestantism, the marriage of church and state still eventually took place, where it became a crime punishable by penalty if someone refused to be a member of the Church of England, and attend government-sanctioned services.

The Puritans in New England specifically came to America to flee from the tyranny of government controlling religion, but in line with their former keepers, the Puritans themselves set up a system based on an established religion, and all of the political ramifications that goes along with such a system.

When the United States Constitution was ratified, the delegates from the convention, and those that argued in favor of the new government during the State ratification conventions, championed that the federal government was limited by the Constitution, only given the authorities to handle external issues, and that all internal issues remained the responsibility of the States, and local governments. As a result, though, as stated in the First Amendment, the federal government could not pass law establishing a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, the States were not affected by that amendment, making religion a State issue.

In 1800, when Thomas Jefferson was elected President of the United States, a group of Baptists in Connecticut who had been enduring an existence of second-class citizenship under the iron fist of the Puritan Church in control of the State, wrote to Jefferson to congratulate him on his win. They were hopeful he could help them in their plight, since he and Madison were the key components in establishing religious freedom in the State of Virginia with the The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786. In response to the letter by the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote that he could not help them because there must be a "wall of separation between church and state."

Thomas Jefferson was a professed Christian, but not your typical church-going Christian. Because of his unorthodox style of worship and outside the mainstream activities regarding his faith, among other reasons, he was targeted by many clergy, media figures, and politicians during the presidential election as being non-religious, an atheist, and one that sought to destroy religion in America. The accusations were so convincing that some citizens actually buried their Bibles in their yards in the hopes of avoiding their Bibles from being confiscated by Jefferson's new government once the statesman had won the election by a narrow margin in the House of Representatives. Jefferson defended himself about his faith in numerous articles and letters, but even today the accusations continue. In a letter to Mr. Charles Thompson, Jefferson declared, "I am a REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." In the letter Jefferson goes on to criticize the people who use religion to their advantage, or in a manner not consistent with the teachings of Christ, because the politics of religion is more important to those people than the faith, itself. Jefferson called himself more of a Christian than those strutting around in the guise of organized religion, and indicated that if Jesus Christ were to return to Earth and see what those people had made of Christianity, He "would not recognize one feature" of His own doctrines.

In Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists, his meaning of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" did not mean what today's conventional wisdom claims. Instead, when you read the entire letter in context, you realize what he was saying was that religion is not an external matter that can be administered by the federal government. It is an internal matter, an issue that exists within the boundaries of the States, and therefore must be a State issue. In other words, it was up to the Danbury Baptists to bring about change in their own State of Connecticut. The federal government could not involve itself in that battle whatsoever. Local issues must be administered by local government.

The theme of the federal government handling external issues, while internal issues are reserved to the States, is present throughout the language in the United States Constitution, and correspondence by the men of that era. To allow the federal government the ability to intrude upon local issues, regardless of the justifications given, or the morality of the issue, was considered very dangerous, and an opening to the festering concept of a large, consolidated federal government controlling the States. The States must be allowed to handle the internal issue themselves. To allow the federal government to intrude upon any of those issues, no matter what they are, would be to open the door for the federal government to use that precedent to intrude upon other internal issues, which would ultimately lead to what happened in many failed civilizations of the past, where the central government became a ruling totalitarian system, micro-managing all issues, including local issues, from a far away bureaucracy that is both detached from the local people, and unable to comprehend what is needed in each locality.

One size fits all governance always collapses.

In Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution we find another clue regarding the attitude of the founders toward whether or not the federal government should be allowed to insert itself into local issues, no matter what that issue is.

The clause addresses immigration, and the Atlantic Slave Trade. The clause uses a phrase, "as any of the States shall think proper to admit," allowing the States full control over both issues prior to 1808. Upon reaching 1808, based on the clause, the United States Congress was be granted the authority to pass laws prohibiting the import of slaves, and any group or persons Congress found necessary in reference to immigration. In the case of slavery, what this did was allow the Congress to pass a law outlawing the Atlantic Slave Trade, and reducing the increase of the slave population in the United States to new births of slaves in the country.

Critics of the Founding Fathers argue that this is evidence that the founders were racist, because it shows they wanted slavery to remain legal in the United States. If they truly believed that slavery was a sin as constitutionalists claim, then the framers of the Constitution would have used the document to outright ban slavery. The argument, however, does not take the reality of the time period into consideration.

Taken into the context of history, a careful observer will realize that banning slavery in 1787 with the Constitution was impossible, if the United States was to have a chance to remain united as the original thirteen States. In order to achieve the required minimum nine ratification votes, the founders needed both northern and southern States to be willing to ratify the Constitution. Without compromises regarding slavery, the southern States would never have been willing to join the new union under the federal government. However, most of the signers of the U.S. Constitution were either abolitionists, or at least believed that slavery was a sin and must not be allowed to expand any further. However, the principles laid out by the Constitution disallowed the federal government through legislation to ban slavery, or influence slavery within the States.

The Constitution was written to grant the federal government authorities, and for those vested authorities to be powers that dealt with external issues. Internal issues were intended to be handled by the State governments, and the local governments. When a central government begins to involve itself in local issues, the road to tyranny is soon to follow. Knowing this, even if for a good and moral cause, the founders did not believe that the federal government should be allowed to force the States to abandon slavery. Once the slaves were within the borders of the States, slavery became a State issue. The States, from the point of view of the founders, had to come to the conclusion to ban slavery themselves, individually, without federal interference. However, the federal government could start the ball rolling by banning the part of slavery that was within their authorities granted, by addressing the external issue of the import of slaves. Therefore, Article I, Section 9 allowed the United States Congress to end the Atlantic Slave Trade beginning in 1808. The delay of twenty years was also a compromise. If the Atlantic Slave Trade was to be eliminated in 1787 when the Constitution was written, the slave States in the South vowed to reject the new Constitution, thus ensuring that the new government failed to reach ratification.

The decision to only allow the federal government to stop the Atlantic Slave Trade was to protect State Sovereignty. Like the individual citizens, the States are supposed to be sovereign individuals, able to make their own decisions regarding the local issues reserved to the States. Enabling the central government to force the States to act the way the federal bureaucrats expect them to act is dangerous, unconstitutional, and a surefire path to tyranny.

Like Rome, the United States began as a republic, but over time the American System has been monkeyed with, transitioning it from a republic, to a democracy, and now we are seeing our system being maneuvered into an oligarchy, with the possibility of it becoming a totalitarian empire run by big government Statists, on the horizon. This transition was not instant, it happened incrementally, and the key in regards to the big picture of it all was changing the atmosphere from the central government handling external issues and local government handling internal issues, to the central government intruding upon all issues, including local laws and customs.

Marriage is yet another part of this equation. The liberal left progressive democrats are working to change marriage from a locally administered issue, to an issue not only being administered by the centralized federal government, but to force the States to comply with the federal government's intrusion on the issue, even after the populations of some States have passed state constitutional amendments and laws to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In other words, this whole onslaught against marriage, forcing States to allow gay marriage despite the vote of the local population, has nothing to do about marriage, and everything to do with the longtime leftist battle to eliminate the States' voice from any law, including local laws. It is an attempt to crush State sovereignty, and the individuality of the States. The democrats claim their authority is their unconstitutional interpretation of federal supremacy - Article VI., however, states that federal laws are only supreme when they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution (in pursuance, thereof). Forcing the States to accept the federal government's definition of marriage on an issue that constitutionally belongs to the States is tyranny.

This is not the first time the democrats have tried to control marriage, either.

Marriage is a personal decision between a couple, and for them to share the joy of the occasion with family and friends. Regulation or licensing by outside agencies, be they religious, or governmental, can be problematic, and normally only emerges when an atmosphere of control is present.

During the founding of this nation marriage was an issue that existed between the couples and their families, and sometimes in the realm of the church. There was no central governmental marriage licenses, though some localities had church issued licenses or licenses issued by local government. Licenses, when issued, were often an attempt to control the problem of marriages outside of family approval. During that time period, when a license was issued, it was under the auspice of government deciding who was fit to marry based on family definitions, or cultural definitions.

Marriage licenses expanded, and became a large government function after the American Civil War, when democrats in the South pushed marriage license laws in order to control marriage, and disallow blacks and whites from entering into matrimony together.

Marriage licenses re-emerged in the 1930s, but this time the federal government unconstitutionally grabbed hold of the issue. With the creation of government programs through the New Deal, marriage became a legal issue, allegedly requiring government regulation in order to determine the proper distribution of the entitlements in the case of divorce, or death.

The intrusion of the government into the issue of marriage has historically been for the purpose of controlling marriage, so that marriage, and divorce, followed the mandates put into place by government bureaucrats. Now, however, the control of marriage has reached new heights, because what is happening is that State after State is passing State Constitution amendments, or pieces of legislation, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and the federal courts are striking these amendments and laws down unconstitutionally. Every time a State passes something stating the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, the courts swoop in under the guise of equality, and use the unconstitutional concept of judicial review to negate the State's decision on a State issue. The gay lobby, in other words, is using the federal government to force the States into federal compliance.

Personally, I don't believe any governmental agency, local or federal, should be involved in marriage. Though I find our culture being herded to accept as normal the concept of marriage other than between a man and a woman, I also recognize that the issue must be guided by cultural norms, not by governmental dictate. From the strictest constitutional guidelines, the issue belongs to the States. From a Christian point of view, the issue belongs to the church. From a reasonable point of view the issue belongs to the couple. In all scenarios, the federal government has no business being involved in the issue.

If the issue of marriage should truly be up to the couple, and the organizations performing the marriage, then government's role is not to control marriage, but to annotate the event for record purposes, and that is all. The churches, or other institutions offering marriage, should then be allowed to make their own decisions on what kind of marriages they are willing to perform, such as one should see in a free market, where the decisions of the institutions will influence the consequences or benefits of their decision, and their success or failure as an institution will be influenced by those decisions.

For the progressive left, the goal is not marriage equity, but to consolidate more power in the federal government, violating the concept of State Sovereignty, and creating another precedent, allowing the federal government to dictate to the States, to force the States to act in a manner in line with what the federal government demands.

A large part of what has made our nation prosperous, innovative, and the home of the free is the individual-centric nature of our system that recognizes the citizens as being individuals that ought to be self-reliant, personally responsible, and make voluntary choices. A part of that equation is the States themselves, as well. The States are individual, autonomous, sovereign entities that are voluntary members of the union, and the creators of the federal government. The federal government was established to serve the States, and handle external issues, while leaving internal issues alone. The federal government was not created to control the States, or force the States into the compliance of some federal mandate.

The federal courts continuously striking down State amendments and State law on the State issue of marriage is opening Pandora's Box into a flood of unconstitutional actions by the federal government, specifically designed to destroy the voice of the States, to silence the voice of the States, and to eliminate the States from the equation so that the federal government becomes the ruling part of government, even over local issues.

When Rome's central government took away local control over local issues, that was among the nails in the coffin for that civilization. When the local issues began to be controlled by a faraway consolidated government that knew nothing of the local reasons for certain laws, based on culture or moral proclivity, collapse was inevitable.

In the end, the liberal left use of the courts to force the States into compliance isn't about fairness, or equity, and has everything to do with the elimination of the individuality of the States. Progressives did it with the 17th Amendment in 1913, and they are working to complete killing the voice of the States through the courts on local issues now.

...

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html) Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to politicalpistachio@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.